Development of CSCW Interfaces from a User-Centered Viewpoint: Extending the TOUCHE Process Model through Defeasible Argumentation

  • María Paula González
  • Victor M. R. Penichet
  • Guillermo R. Simari
  • Ricardo Tesoriero
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5619)


The Task-Oriented and User-CenteredProcess Model for Developing Interfaces for Human-Computer-Human Environments (TOUCHE) is aimed to build up user interfaces for groupware applications under a Human-Computer Interaction perspective. It includes a large set of well known formal models like Class Diagrams, Organizational Structure Diagrams, Task Diagrams, Collaboration Diagrams and Abstract Interaction Objects among others. Most of such models, however, suffer from a number of limitations when formalizing users’ commonsense. Over the last few years, Argumentation Systems have been gaining importance in several areas of Artificial Intelligence, mainly as a vehicle for facilitating rationally justifiable decision making when handling incomplete and potentially inconsistent information. This paper sketches a Proof of Concept to show how defeasible argumentation techniques can be embedded within the TOUCHE. The final goal is to enhance the capability of development process models for CSCW systems by including a rule-based approach for efficient reasoning with incomplete and inconsistent information.


Class Diagram Case Diagram Argumentation System Inconsistent Information Development Process Model 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Penichet, V., Lozano, M., Gallud, J., Tesoriero, R.: Requirement Gathering Templates for Groupware Applications. In: Macías, J.A., Granollers, T., Latorre, P.M. (eds.) New Trends on HCI. Research, Development, New Tools and Methods. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Penichet, V., Lozano, M., Gallud, J., Tesoriero, R.: User Interface Analysis for Groupware Applications in the TOUCHE Process Model. International Journal Advances in Engineering Software (ADES) (in press, 2009) ISSN: 0965-9978, doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2009.01.026Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burge, J., Brown, D.C.: Reasoning with design rationale. In: AI in Design 2000, pp. 611–629. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht (2000)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jureta, J., Faulkner, S., Schobbens, P.: Clear justification of modelling decisions for goal-oriented requirements engineering. Requirements Eng. 13, 87–115 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jureta, I.J., Faulkner, S.: Tracing the Rationale Behind UML Model Change Through Argumentation. In: Parent, C., Schewe, K.-D., Storey, V.C., Thalheim, B. (eds.) ER 2007. LNCS, vol. 4801, pp. 454–469. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    González, M.P., Chesñevar, C., Collazos, C., Simari, R.: Modelling Shared Knowledge and Shared Knowledge Awareness in CSCL Scenarios through Automated Argumentation Systems. In: Haake, J.M., Ochoa, S.F., Cechich, A. (eds.) CRIWG 2007. LNCS, vol. 4715, pp. 207–222. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kirschner, P., Buckingham, S., Carr, C. (eds.): Visualizing Argumentation: Software Tools for Collaborative and Educational Sense-Making. Springer, London (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gervasi, V., Zowghi, D.: Reasoning about inconsistencies in natural language requirements. ACM Trans. Softw. Eng. Methodol. 14(3), 277–330 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Durán, A.: Applying Requirements Engineering. Catedral Publicaciones, Spain (2003) ISBN: 84-96086-06-2Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Paternò, F.: Model-based Design and Evaluation of Interactive Applications. Springer, Heidelberg (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Limbourg, Q., et al.: USIXML: A Language Supporting Multi-path Development of User Interfaces. In: Bastide, R., Palanque, P., Roth, J. (eds.) DSV-IS 2004 and EHCI 2004. LNCS, vol. 3425, pp. 200–220. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rahwan, I., Parsons, S., Reed, C. (eds.): Argumentation in Multi-Agent Systems. LNCS (LNAI), vol. 4946. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chesñevar, C.I., Maguitman, A., Loui, R.: Logical Models of Argument. ACM Computing Surveys 32(4), 337–383 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chesñevar, C., Maguitman, A., Simari, G.: Argument-Based Critics and Recommenders: A Qualitative Perspective on User Support Systems. Data & Knowledge Engineering 59(2), 293–319 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brena, R., Aguirre, J., Chesñevar, C., Ramirez, E., Garrido, L.: Knowledge and Information Distribution Leveraged by Intelligent Agents. In: Knowledge and Information Systems (KAIS), vol. 12(2), pp. 203–227. Springer, Heidelberg (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    García, A., Simari, G.: Defeasible Logic Programming: An Argumentative Approach. Theory and Practice of Logic Programming 4(1), 95–138 (2004)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Reed, C., Rowe, G.: Araucaria: Software for Argument Analysis, Diagramming and Representation. Int. J. on Artificial Intelligence Tools 13(4), 961–979 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu, X., Zhang, X., Soh, L.-K., Al-Jaroodi, J., Jiang, H.: A Distributed, Multiagent Infrastructure for Real-Time, Virtual Classrooms. In: Proc. ICCE 2003, pp. 640–647 (2003)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Soller, A., Guizzardi, R., Molani, A., Perini, A.: SCALE: supporting community awareness, learning, and evolvement in an organizational learning environment. In: Proc. of the 6th international conference on Learning sciences, pp. 489–496 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • María Paula González
    • 1
    • 2
    • 4
  • Victor M. R. Penichet
    • 3
  • Guillermo R. Simari
    • 2
  • Ricardo Tesoriero
    • 3
  1. 1.National Council of Scientific and Technical Research (CONICET)Argentina
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringUniversidad Nacional del SurBahía BlancaArgentina
  3. 3.Computer Systems DepartmentUniversidad Castilla-La ManchaAlbaceteSpain
  4. 4.GRIHO Research GroupUniversitat de LleidaLleidaSpain

Personalised recommendations